PRAKASH CHANDRA DIXIT Vs. SANJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether Civil Court has got jurisdiction to hear and decide O.S. No. 71 of 2000 Smt. S. Kumari Devi v. Prakash Chandra Dixit and another. Original plaintiff Smt. S. Kumari has died and been substituted by her two sons who are respondents in this writ petition. Copy of the plaint is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Relief claimed in the plaint is for a declaration to the effect that alleged sale deed dated 19.9.1984 executed by Champa Devi in favour of the defendants petitioner is not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. Defendants petitioners filed written statement. Issues were framed. Issue No. 9. related to the question of jurisdiction i.e. as to whether suit was barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Trial court/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 1, Varanasi through order dated 5.9.2012 decided issue No. 9, as preliminary issue and in favour of the plaintiff holding the suit to be maintainable before the Civil Court. Against the said order petitioners filed civil revision No. 220 of 2012 which was dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 8, Varanasi on 25.2.2013, hence this writ petition.

(2.) The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is purely a suit for declaration hence maintainable before Revenue Court under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Learned counsel has particularly invited the attention of the court to para 6 of the plaint. The original plaintiff (since deceased and survived by her sons/legal representative) pleaded in the plaint that late Champa Devi executed a gift deed in her favour on 29.8.1986 and since the said date she was in possession over the land in dispute which is agricultural land and on the basis of the gift deed her name was also mutated in the revenue record as Bhumidhar. Para 6 of the plaint was subsequently amended through order dated 15.10.2004 and it was pleaded that both the defendants are asserting that they have got right over the property in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 29.9.1984 alleged to have been executed by Champa Devi in their favour, however, the said sale deed was not executed by Champa Devi but by some imposter posing as Champa Devi and no sale consideration was paid to Champa Devi also and defendants were not in possession and plaintiff came to know about the sale deed afterwards.

(3.) The trial court through the order deciding the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff held that name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record.